Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

I'd be amused by someone explaining to these "Southern faux-christian" idiots that both Santorum (Catholic) and Romney (Mormon) believe all those voters are going to hell for not having the right beliefs. And that their choices of either a Catholic or a Mormon or (I don't know is Fornicator a religion, Newt? ) .... well, good luck with those options there, eyup. America, theocratic wasteland - one expanding waistline inch at a time.

I'd be amused by someone explaining to these "Southern faux-christian" idiots that both Santorum (Catholic) and Romney (Mormon) believe all those voters are going to hell for not having the right beliefs. And that their choices of either a Catholic or a Mormon or (I don't know is Fornicator a religion, Newt? ) .... well, good luck with those options there, eyup. America, theocratic wasteland - one expanding waistline inch at a time.

I saw that article. It is both sad and funny. More sad, though. Just so we are clear, I was speaking in a mockful way. Sarcasm, parody, that sort of thing. Those things quoted, I don't actually think those things about Obama.

Here, this is in line with that article you posted. This is before Obama was even elected. And not even from the deep south! It is from Ohio.

Remember: Mindy Green thinks Obama is a terrorist! ...because...his name looks like Osama...and...I'm guessing...because he is black! Go Mindy!

Let's not forget his middle name, Hussein! That is a very Muslim sounding name and we all know Muslims are terrorists! What's more he could even be related to Saddam Hussein! *sarcastic comment before any one bites me*

Sniper training, pfft, execution point blank range at terrified women and children... man, I'm of the opinion that the base should stake him to a pole out at the front gate and just look away while the villagers take vengence.

edit: Actually, Heinlein had an excellent short segment on this sort of stuff in Starship Troopers... they executed the coward with the entire base present.

edit: The DoD is already suggesting it may seek the death penalty

Quote:

The death penalty could be sought in the U.S. military justice system against the soldier, whose name has not been publicly disclosed.

It is just so terrible what that guy did, not only for the very crimes he committed that night, but the rippling effects this will create. Now more people in Afghanistan will side with the Taliban**, there will be retaliation attacks that will result in more U.S. and ally troops dying than if he never did these crimes, and this one incident alone will recruit a good number of terrorists. As if the crimes he committed weren't bad enough (and they are atrocious), it actually will help create even more death and carnage in the end; an undetermined, but very significant, amount.

**About this, it's not like the Taliban won't just take over soon after we leave, anyway.

looks like someone has the estimated date on when will Chinese economy hit the brick wall and limp out Japanese-style if decisive change of course is not made...

It is interesting to play with a bit of history. Both Japan and Korea suffered their crises roughly 35 years after the Asian development model was switched on — the early 1950s to ’89 in Japan, and 1962 to ’97 in Korea. That puts a China crisis at around 2014-15 or so. I’m not predicting a firm date here. What I am saying is that China is running out of time to fix the problems of its economy.

I find any prediction about a date is like throwing stuff at the wall and hoping they'll stick there. But I do agree the point that the Chinese economy needs a lot of reform, and it is more than changing the economic model from export oriented to consumption oriented.

I find any prediction about a date is like throwing stuff at the wall and hoping they'll stick there. But I do agree the point that the Chinese economy needs a lot of reform, and it is more than changing the economic model from export oriented to consumption oriented.

Being export-oriented isn't much of a problem IMO, it is part of societal evolution as domestic consumption of goods is deteremined by the people's desire to have wants. The typical Asian society is pretty pragmatic; they don't want anything that does not project an image of their wealth, nor has any utility. Consumption increases the liquidity of the currency; and that is an "advanced stage" of an economy evolving.

The serious problem about the Chinese economy is corruption - there are many officials who had "carried interests" in various sectors that made doing business a pain in the ass. SMEs with creative ideas and products are safe from false-choice/forcible acquisition, as long as a big guy with government backing doesn't discover them.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

I find any prediction about a date is like throwing stuff at the wall and hoping they'll stick there. But I do agree the point that the Chinese economy needs a lot of reform, and it is more than changing the economic model from export oriented to consumption oriented.

While the Chinese economy is still growing, the era is cheap China is over. Chinese workers are demanding better pay and worker's rights(Which they should) as the middle class has grown. Factories in China are already having machinery not working because they can't get workers.

Many jobs are going to India now. I know that China is seen as the future economic dynamo, but I think India is discounted too fast.

Actually it is useful to have low-level corruption; forces the governing body to periodically reconsider pay-rate and psychological profiles of ground-level officials (who earn the least - the Malaysian traffic police is a good example of how pay can affect work morale; you are ONLY going to give a piece of metal to the cop who busted a heroin laden car?).

The problem is corruption at higher levels and higher ranks; over here in Singapore the CPIB are made up of a bunch of legal nerds who scrutinise EVERY single aspect of investment owned by government officials, I used to know an old man who griped about having to submit reports about his trading account before his retirement from the public sector.

You can't eliminate corruption, but you can use it as a useful indicator to assess the loyalty of your employees, but more importantly, the work environment you created for them.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

Every Chinese I know claims that the corruption mostly comes from the local authorities, at the municipal level. The central government at Beijing is seen as least corrupt. There are plenty of stories about people going to Beijing to present their case to the central government, and how the local officials try to stop them.

But even the Chinese government at the grand level is pretty bad. Just lots of instances where the Chinese government shows little to no regard for human rights and the oppression of the Tibetan people and the ongoing attempt to destroy and eradicate their culture are well known things that highlight corruption from the Chinese government. And corrupt business practices (not to say the U.S. isn't a specialist at that sort of thing).

Actually it is useful to have low-level corruption; forces the governing body to periodically reconsider pay-rate and psychological profiles of ground-level officials (who earn the least - the Malaysian traffic police is a good example of how pay can affect work morale; you are ONLY going to give a piece of metal to the cop who busted a heroin laden car?).

The problem is corruption at higher levels and higher ranks; over here in Singapore the CPIB are made up of a bunch of legal nerds who scrutinise EVERY single aspect of investment owned by government officials, I used to know an old man who griped about having to submit reports about his trading account before his retirement from the public sector.

You can't eliminate corruption, but you can use it as a useful indicator to assess the loyalty of your employees, but more importantly, the work environment you created for them.

Low level corruption also has its own problems. If corruption becomes prevalent at the lower levels then the attitude towards bribes becomes entrenched; people will see bribes as a way of life. This has wide reaching repercussions and can lead to not only extra costs in having to bribe officials but corruption is liable to incur other costs as low-level officials cut corners on government projects which in the worst case scenario can lead to loss of life as well as extra damages. These costs are generally inflicted on the public at large while the gains of corruption are privatised to the officials in question. At the end of the day we must remember that for all the good points we could try and attach to corruption in essence they are taking money from someone they are not supposed to in order to fulfil some activity.

Plus we got to see that corruption is a very slippery slope. Yes I can somewhat understand that in many countries low level jobs are not paid enough to earn a living so they must depend on bribes to live. However this is the problem I see, an official has a wife and kids to feed. He does not earn enough money in pay so he must accept the odd bribe here and there so his kids are properly fed and clothed. However that level is not really enough because he also wants his kids to go to a good school so they have a better future than him. That means more bribes. Thing is when they are in a good school they need better clothes and generally have to fit with their peers so that can lead to even more bribes. If he gets to this point he is probably doing quite well so he takes a few more bribes and treats himself (and his wife) to a new car. Now you can see where this going, before you know it you are living on bribes and the other issue is once you start it is hard to stop. Plus once you start accepting bribes you are a partner in crime to someone and the danger is you will have to repay someone for carrying out a favour which can mean doing questionable things.

The other issue with China, is like the U.S.S.R. the economy still carries out a considerable amount of central planning. This amount of central planning usually means local officials have to meet certain ambitious government targets. That in itself asks for trouble as officials will do everything they can, by hook or by crock, to meet those targets (if they didn't they would be sacked). As a result of this pressure officials can be tempted into fudging numbers or making people turn a blind eye to certain shortcomings by offering bribes. Granted this situation could apply to any government as certain functions are centrally planned but my argument is China is more centrally planned than most economies.

Every Chinese I know claims that the corruption mostly comes from the local authorities, at the municipal level. The central government at Beijing is seen as least corrupt. There are plenty of stories about people going to Beijing to present their case to the central government, and how the local officials try to stop them.

There are four generally-established levels of government in a bureaucracy; grunt, managing supervisor, senior staff, central directorate.

The worst corruption comes from the senior staff, when initial corruption during their times as MS carries upwards. China has unwatched corruption for a number of years, how many of those actually got promoted and carried the disease upwards?

Quote:

Originally Posted by monsta666

The other issue with China, is like the U.S.S.R. the economy still carries out a considerable amount of central planning. This amount of central planning usually means local officials have to meet certain ambitious government targets. That in itself asks for trouble as officials will do everything they can, by hook or by crock, to meet those targets (if they didn't they would be sacked). As a result of this pressure officials can be tempted into fudging numbers or making people turn a blind eye to certain shortcomings by offering bribes. Granted this situation could apply to any government as certain functions are centrally planned but my argument is China is more centrally planned than most economies.

What I see is that central planning is turning its tide; it seems that the power is shifting towards the businessmen through monetary threats; the central government need the businesses more than the businesses need the central government.

The government knows that they can't nationalise the companies because they don't know how to run them. \

Looks like a desperate attempt to cling onto their investors, aren't they?

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

What I see is that central planning is turning its tide; it seems that the power is shifting towards the businessmen through monetary threats; the central government need the businesses more than the businesses need the central government.

The government knows that they can't nationalise the companies because they don't know how to run them.